LANCE ARMSTRONG a true sports hero!

[Cal Weldon]

Originally Posted by vinylkid58

Either that or go down with the ship!

Originally Posted by sippy

Well said vinylkid

I think a little more research is in order boys.

[vinylkid58]

Nope. I never liked Lance, so can't be bothered.

jeff

edit: And just for the record, I don't like Dick Pound either.

[Cal Weldon]

You are so hard to get along with sometimes.

I like you much better in person, you make such yummy pies.

[vinylkid58]

Thanks Cal. I've got a peach crisp in the oven as we speak.

jeff

[sippy]

The simple nuts and bolts of this is doping - the cycling / sporting world and governing bodies have had enough.
USADA will not hand the Armstrong case over to the UCI because it HAS got to be seen to be doing something about the problem.
Does anyone reading this thread/following the news honestly think that the USA would let FRANCE take his titles away?
Any one who thinks that the USA would allow this is either mental, on drugs or both.
If it were the USA trying to take away Wiggins medal, I'd be in London stoning the US embassy.
Tyler Hamilton, A CONVICTED DOPER, stripped of his national jersey, classed as a 'so what' title outside the continents shores and, far more importantly, an Olympic gold, recently given to whoever took silver, WILLING to testify, he even said as much in the world cycling press 'why should others get away with it'
As are 10 other men from the squad.
Factor in Alberto Contador, who was under the same management and caught for doping, things look BAD.
Why wont they subpoena Lance, my guess is that they don't want to cause a fuss.
This makes the legal system look like a total joke. (and the USA is in the grips election fever).
Why wont Lance stand up for his good name?
He ain't got the bottle as a man or the drugs he might have taken have made him into another 'roid head'.
Oh wait, I'm sounding like a scratched record.
Another way is to let this episode run its course, so further generations of competitors in ANY sport can learn from it.
Then introduce as LAW: found to be doping - banned for life, including team management.

Personal:
Cal,
I've stood in Crown Court and proven my good name - the charge was Armed Robbery, the case was brought twice against me, even if not convicted first time, second time a charge is brought for this offence is the punishment is LIFE SENTENCE, it took 4 years to sort the mess out -Turned out the Crown Prosecution Service didn't have any evidence. My 'peers' found me not guilty, TWICE.
Takes man bits to go through it innocent, Takes more to post this in a forum for a community of strangers to view. If the case was brought a 100 more times against me, my answer would still be the same, NOT GUILTY.
So why is Mr.L.Armstrong different to me?
I wear YELLOW jerseys when I ride, tis me club colours.....
And its my day off, so I'm going to go for a ride on my cycle...... DRUG FREE*
*other than natural ones my body produces and the imbibed caffeine from 3 cups of strong tea.

ps. I have been following the Armstrong USADA thing - there's nothing new other than re-hashed articals, so IF you privvy, let us all know and post a link.
Toodle Pip!

[CeeVee]

Guys just some questions,

I'm absolutely against all sorts of drugs and doping in sport but:

1 - Lance was winning for years and years, why was nothing conclusive done then ?
2 - Will we see in 50 or 70 years time when some wacko study prooves Guinness and Gauloise as an unfair advantage that Merckz and others will loose their winnings ?

3- Will the beneficiaries of all the publicity he generated give the money back too ? or it's safe to crucify him now that he has earned the money for them ?

There is a lot of hipocracy here as i see it .

[Cal Weldon]

Originally Posted by sippy

So why is Mr.L.Armstrong different to me?

I dare say, the outcome of a guilty verdict is rather different in the two cases. I believe he is simply fed up fighting the rabid dog that is the USADA.

Originally Posted by CeeVee

1 - Lance was winning for years and years, why was nothing conclusive done then ?

A conviction should require irrefutable evidence, not speculation and hearsay.

There is a lot of hipocracy here as i see it .

Indeed.

[a.wayne]

Go Lance ....

LA did the right thing by stepping away, Arbitration would mean Lance would have to testify under oath. This would perfect the perjury trap. The perjury trap is an ugly tool used by prosecutors when they don't have any evidence. I would have advised him tio avoid it.

Lance rode for years and was never charged with doping , those around him were ot so lucky and have been charged with doping and all the evidence against LA is all hearsay ...as Lance Armstrong took over 500 tests. He never tested positive for a banned substance or masking agent. In any event abnormalities in testing are always construed in favor of the test taker. The ten eyewitnesses appear to be eyewitnesses to different events.

Plus,

Everyone knew Lance took EPO and Steroids as part of cancer treatment. He was cleared to race anyway . That's not his fault. No one would consider that cheating.



LA is a winner and a champion, first he beat cancer and then the Tour, this is nothing more than a bunch of arrogant suck off the tax tit bureaucrats , out to prove their game..

Sad, they should turn their dope attn to Washington, now there's some dope for yah ...

[buzzforb]

Is their evidence of his doping in this thread. I have found tons of speculation and accusation, but no evidence. They have more evidence that Politicians cheat and steal and take illegal money and they don't go after them like this guy. Europeans are pissed he kicked their ***** for 7 years. Greg Lemond would have done close to the same if he hadnt had to ride as standby behind a subpar European captain as well as having to recover from a gunshot. Stirring, Stirring, stirring

[makingmoney]

Originally Posted by Cal Weldon

I dare say, the outcome of a guilty verdict is rather different in the two cases. I believe he is simply fed up fighting the rabid dog that is the USADA.

A conviction should require irrefutable evidence, not speculation and hearsay.

Indeed.

People are convicted every day of crimes and sent to prison without irrefutable evidence. Why should a doping conviction require a higher standard?

Why did every rider who finished second or third, except one, to Armstrong leave the sport, go to jail, because they got caught using having possesion of or heavily implicated in (Peurto anyone, Ulrich?) because of police work? Not drug testing. It's designed to only catch idiot riders. Like baseball's drug "testing".

But wait, all those dope riders stopped using dope during the Tour, the most important race of the year, and were clean. Just like Lance.